Don't Fund UNFPA Population Control

by Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato
Institute.

Within the next week or so Congress will vote on whether to restore $60
million of U.S. taxpayer funding over the next two years for the United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). For at least 30 years the UNFPA has been
a complicit partner in some of the most unspeakably brutal population
control programs around the globe -- including China's genocidal
one-couple, one-child policy. Almost universally, women and children -- at
least hundreds of thousands of them -- have been the victims of this
fanatical crusade. The UNFPA should not be re-funded. It should be
universally condemned for the evil acts in which it has participated.

These days almost no sane person gives any credence to the population
bomb hysteria that was all the rage in the 1960s and 1970s. Every
prediction of massive starvations, eco-catastrophes of biblical
proportions and $100 a barrel oil has been discredited by the global
economic and environmental progress of the past quarter century.
Intellectually, the Malthusian limits to growth menace is stone dead.

But within the Clinton-Gore State Department, Malthusianism flourishes.
The Clinton administration still allocates almost $300 million a year to
international population control -- or what is euphemistically described
these days as "family planning." In countries ranging from India to Mexico
to Nigeria to Brazil, the basic human right of couples to control their
own fertility and determine their own family size has been trampled upon
by the state, thanks in larger part to flows of dollars and deluges of
false limits-to-growth propaganda supplied by the American government.

The UNFPA, however, has had a particularly demon-like presence in
developing nations. Back in the Reagan years, Congress sensibly pulled out
of the UNFPA because of its complicity in some of the most inhumane forms
of population containment. Today the UNFPA ludicrously maintains the
fiction that the agency has fought coercive policies. How does one explain
then, that UNFPA once gave an award to the Chinese government for the
effectiveness of its genocidal one child per couple policy?

To this day no one knows precisely how many babies and women have died
at the hands of the population control fanatics in China. What we do know
is that this program will go down in history as one of the greatest abuses
of human rights in the 20th century (see table). The Chinese government's
birth control policy has already claimed an estimated 5-10 million
victims. I say already because this is an ongoing genocide. An estimated
80-90 percent of the victims have been girls. UNFPA still spends millions
each year on population control programs in China.

Incredibly the members of Congress leading the campaign to restore
funding for the UNFPA tend to be "pro-choice" women -- principally Carolyn
Maloney of New York, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Connie Morella of
Maryland. But how in the world can an agency that participates in programs
that sterilize women against their will or that tells women they have an
ecological responsibility to have only one or at most two children
possibly be called pro-choice? Last year the U.S. Senate Committee on
Human Rights heard from witnesses of the China population program, who
related how rural women are forcibly strapped to steel tables in
"hospitals" and their babies aborted -- in some cases in the 7th, 8th and
9th months of pregnancy. Ms. Maloney may fantasize that the UNFPA promotes
"reproductive rights," but there are quite literally millions of women in
China, India and Mexico who would beg to differ.

These programs were never about giving women reproductive choice. Just
the opposite. Population control programs have been from their inception
about preventing couples from having "too many" babies. Moreover, these
"family planning" services do not promote women's and children's health;
they come at its expense. There are many Third World hospitals that lack
bandages, needles and basic medicines but are filled to the brim with
boxes of condoms -- stamped UNFPA or USAID.

Rep. Maloney believes that population control is necessary to "stop
hunger and preserve our world's resources." In Maloney's dim world view,
human beings are not resources. They are destroyers of resources. Yes, the
spirit of Malthus is alive and well in the U.S. Congress.

A vote for the UNFPA is a vote for a fanatical anti-people creed that
holds that we should celebrate the planting of a tree, or a litter of
three baby seals, but that we should regard the birth of a human couple's
third baby in China or India or even the United States as eco-terrorism.
This is a fundamentally anti-Christian philosophy and it explains why
groups like UNFPA, Zero Population Growth and Planned Parenthood view the
Catholic Church as "the evil empire."

The cause of world hunger and environmental disasters in the world
today is not too many people. It is too much statism. Almost all of the
greatest ecological damage of the past 50 years was perpetrated by the
socialists behind the iron curtain.

Reagan had it right when he declared 15 years ago that economic growth
is "the best contraceptive." The UNFPA is at best irrelevant to economic
development and probably a deterrent. To help women and children in the
developing world, the United States should be exporting capitalism, not
condoms.

Greatest Genocides of the 20th Century

Turkey's Slaughter of Armenians

0.5 - 1.0 million

Hitler's Holocaust

6 million

Pol Pot's Killing Fields

1 - 2 million

Stalin Extermination of Jews

10 million

Chinese One-Child Policy

5 - 10 million

Mao's Great Leap Forward

10 - 20 million

U.S. Abortions*

40 - 50 million

This article originally appeared in The Washington Times on May 9,
1999.

* I added this addition (U.S. Abortions) because it certainly
CANNOT be disregarded. Abortion is genocide!

Population Research Institute (PRI) sent an independent investigative
team to China on September 27, 2001. The investigative team consisted of
Ms. Josephine Guy, a paralegal with a background in security affairs, two
translators and one photographer/videographer. Additional assistance was
provided by two associate researchers based in China.

PRI's investigative team spent a total of four days in China. During
this period, the investigative team interviewed family planning workers
and spent over 10 hours interviewing more than two dozen victims or
witnesses of coercion in Sihui County. Over four hours of testimonies were
recorded on audiotape, and approximately 30 minutes of testimonies were
recorded on videotape.

Interviews with victims were also recorded in notebooks, in both
Chinese and English, and additional photographic evidence was obtained.
Victims and witnesses of coercion were interviewed privately, not in the
presence of officials, to ensure those interviewed were able to speak
about their own experiences with the one-child policy without fear of
reprisals.

The investigative team also located the Chinese office of family
planning in Sihui county, Guangdong Province, and spoke with local family
planning officials. Local officials provided information about UNFPA's
county program, including the location of the office desk of UNFPA's
worker for the Sihui county program.

PRI's lead investigator returned to the US in early October with the
audiotaped and videotaped testimony, and all other information obtained by
the investigative team during its investigation.

Doing field research in the People's Republic of China presents
challenges. The government is hostile to investigators who do not take the
nature of its policies on face value, and punishes its domestic critics
with extreme severity. PRI's investigative team, therefore, took
precautions to protect those who testified.

In addition, the names of the translators, the photographer, and
China-based personnel of the investigative team have been withheld to
prevent retribution by the government of the People's Republic of China.

Moreover, PRI sought no assistance from the government of the People's
Republic of China to carry out its investigation, and received none. Had
such assistance been sought, it is likely that the PRC government would
have either obstructed PRI's investigation by denying visas to the members
of our investigative team, or attempted to influence the investigation and
the testimonies provided by the victims and witnesses of coercion.

UNFPA County Program
in Sihui

The goal of PRI's independent investigative team was to carry out an
in-depth analysis of a UNFPA county program.

UNFPA has stated on the record that it operates family planning
programs in 32 counties in China. In these programs, UNFPA states, family
planning is "fully voluntary" and that there is no coercion. UNFPA also
states that in these counties, targets and quotas have been lifted, "women
are free to voluntarily select the timing and spacing of their
pregnancies", and abortion is not promoted as a method of family planning.
(See: "UNFPA's County Program in China: Providing Quality Care, Protecting
Human Rights," UNFPA, August 10, 2001.)

PRI obtained first-hand evidence which calls into question the accuracy
of UNFPA's claims.

The county program selected for investigation was in Sihui county, in
Guangdong Province in Southern China, approximately 100 miles northwest of
Hong Kong.

While this report focuses on the findings of PRI's investigative team
in Sihui county, PRI researchers were also told of the existence of
coercion in two other UNFPA county programs.

In Sihui county, during phone conversations and discussions in person
with local officials, members of PRI's independent investigative team were
provided with information about:

" The geographical extent of Sihui county.
" The location of the Chinese Office of Family Planning.
" The location of the office desk of the UNFPA family planning
representative for Sihui county.

PRI investigators were told by county officials that UNFPA's county
program in Sihui operates in support of the Chinese family planning
program.

The investigative team was told by officials that UNFPA's
representative in Sihui and Chinese family planning officials work from
the same office, the Sihui County Office of Family Planning.

PRI investigators spoke to Chinese officials in this office, and
inquired about UNFPA. PRI investigators were shown by these officials the
UNFPA desk. Photographic evidence of the UNFPA office desk within this
office was obtained by PRI's photographer. Local officials told PRI
investigators that there is no distinction between UNFPA's program in
Sihui and the Chinese family planning program in Sihui. PRI investigators
visited this office on three occasions. On two of these occasions,
officials pointed to the UNFPA desk, and also said that the UNFPA
representative was at the local hospital. On the third occasion,
additional photographic evidence was obtained.

Officials also informed PRI investigators of the borders of Sihui. All
interviews referred to in this report were conducted within the borders of
Sihui county; namely, within the area that the Sihui office of family
planning, and the UNFPA family planning representative, operates.

Interviews

The investigative team received testimony from over two dozen victims
and witnesses of coercion within Sihui, all within a few miles of the
UNFPA office desk. Interviews were conducted in a government medical
facility, and in four different residential areas. By many victims and
witnesses of coercion, PRI investigators were told that:

" There is no voluntary family planning in Sihui.
" Coercive family planning policies in Sihui include: age requirements for
pregnancy; birth permits; mandatory use of IUDs; mandatory sterilization;
crippling fines for non-compliance; imprisonment for non-compliance;
destruction of homes and property for non-compliance; forced abortion and
forced sterilization.

Witnesses and victims said that population control is implemented by
force of the state, rather than, as the UNFPA claims, through "a
client-oriented approach".

The UNFPA Office
Desk

On September 26, 2001, one of PRI's translators placed calls to the
Sihui county government building. PRI's translator was given the room
number of the Office of Family Planning by a local official. PRI's
translator, on September 26, went to that office and spoke with family
planning officials. A family planning worker, in the Sihui County Office
of Family Planning, pointed to an office desk. Two family planning workers
in this office told PRI's translator that "this is the desk" of the UNFPA
worker.

On September 27, the investigative team entered the Sihui County
Government Building and spoke again with local officials, who again gave
the location of the office desk of the UNFPA officer within the Sihui
County Family Planning Office. Photographic evidence of the office, its
occupants, and its signage was obtained on this and the following day.

The sign outside the door of the office says: Family Planning Office,
Room 1. The offices -- a single large room -- house six family planning
workers. One is described as the UNFPA representative. The UNFPA
representative's desk faces, in fact touches, the desk of a Chinese family
planning worker.

Interviews in
Government Facility

On September 28, the investigative team visited a government medical
facility located within a mile of the Sihui County Family Planning Office
and within the borders of Sihui county. The team interviewed one doctor,
and four women who said that voluntarism does not exist within the
county's family planning program. The team met a woman who was at the
facility to receive a non-voluntary abortion. She was accompanied by three
friends, all of whom said that Chinese law mandates abortions for women
pregnant without government permission. They asserted that their friend
wanted to continue her pregnancy, but the law forbids it.

Interviews in
Residential Areas

On September 27, 28 and 29, the investigative team visited four
residential areas, all within a few miles of the Sihui County Family
Planning Office and within the borders of Sihui county. In interview after
interview, local men and women said that, in Sihui county's family
planning program:

" Coercion is as bad today as it has ever been.
" Forced abortions, forced sterilization, and forced use of Depro Provera,
IUDs and other forms of birth control are routine.
" The punishment for noncompliance includes crippling fines, destruction
of homes, and imprisonment of women and their relatives.
" Voluntary family planning is non-existent.

The interviews were conducted in open-air settings, as well as in
peoples' homes. As formal interviews were being conducted and recorded,
bystanders often gathered and began to tell their own stories of coercion.
No one disputed that the county's family planning programs were coercive.
Several of those interviewed spoke of the routine destruction of homes for
attempting unauthorized births.

Propaganda slogans promoting the necessity and the benefits of family
planning were posted throughout the four residential areas. None of the
slogans mentioned that coercion has been eliminated and quotas and targets
had been lifted, as the UNFPA claims, in Sihui county.

On September 29, the investigative team visited what locals called a
"model family planning village" within this UNFPA "model county." Two
residents of this village said in interviews that local family planning
workers receive benefits and promotions based on their compliance with
targets and quotas.

These same residents also said that, within the "model family planning
village," family planning policy was enforced using the same non-voluntary
measures that were found elsewhere.

Interviewing
Methods

While conducting interviews, the investigation team did not attempt to
administer a survey instrument, but asked open questions about the
interviewee, their family, and their experiences with the family planning
program.

In the words of Ms. Josephine Guy, PRI's lead investigator: "We struck
up casual conversations, and asked people if they would talk to us about
family life. People were friendly and pleased to have visitors from
outside of China. As the conversation began in earnest, more and more
people would invariably gather around, curious to discover the reason for
our visit. Many times they would chime into the conversation. At times it
was difficult to carry on conversations, so many people were talking at
once. Everyone was eager to talk and answer our many questions. After a
few minutes, we would begin to ask pointed questions about family planning
policies and their own personal experience. I was initially worried that
they might be bothered by the subject matter and hesitate to answer. To my
surprise, they continued with enthusiasm."

Jackhammer Campaign

Several women testified that the penalty for noncompliance with an
order to abort an unauthorized pregnancy, or to undergo sterilization
after the birth of a second child, was the destruction of one's home. One
woman told PRI investigators of a woman nearby, who was recently forced to
leave her home to protect her pregnancy against forced abortion. As this
woman spoke, she became very emotional and began to hide her tears.

In another residential area, we spoke with a man who was working in his
garden. He turned out to be the father-in-law of a woman who had been
ordered to have an abortion but had instead gone into hiding. He was angry
at local officials because his home and two others had been recently
destroyed by Sihui family planning workers as punishment for his
daughter-in-law's refusal to submit to an abortion as required by the law.

Nine of this woman's family members had been imprisoned and they had
been forced to pay fines to win their release. Their neighbors had loaned
them the funds they needed to pay the fines.

This man took PRI's investigative team to interview his
daughter-in-law. She told PRI investigators of the punishments she and her
family had experienced. She showed us the areas of her house that had been
destroyed. Before leaving, PRI investigators were able to meet her baby
boy, who was thirteen months old.

She told us of the additional fines that must be paid if her son is to
be eligible for medical care, schooling or employment in the future. At
present, she described her little boy as a "black child," that is, an
unregistered and illegal person, who does not exist in the eyes of the
state. Many of those we interviewed told us of the problems experienced by
"black children," who are punished for being born without a permit.

Congressional
Testimony

At an Oct. 17 congressional hearing, the lead investigator of PRI's
independent investigative team showcased the following testimonies
recorded on audio- and videotape in China. These testimonies are a sample
of the interviews carried out in China. All interviews took place within a
few miles of the UNFPA office desk and within the borders of Sihui county:

Questioner: "If you violate the population control regulations by
having too many children, what happens to you?"

Woman: "When I had my children, things were not as strict. Right now,
things are very, very strict."

Questioner: "What happens to you if you give birth to another child?"

Woman: "You want to have another child! You think it's that easy to
give birth!"

Questioner: "Would someone come to your house and take you in by force
in for an abortion?"

Woman: "Yes. But they don't need to use force. They simply require you
to go."

Questioner: "And if you don't go?"

Woman (astonished): "They require you to go and you don't go?"

Questioner: "What if you say you don't want to go?"

Woman: "What reason could you give [for resisting.] Giving birth to an
extra child is difficult, very, very difficult to have a child."

Questioner: "But you yourself had three children. How did this happen?"

Woman: "First I had two. Then seven years later I had another baby boy.
They had already tied my tubes and I had another boy."

Questioner: "After you had an operation? After they tied your tubes?
How did they know you had a baby?"

Woman: "They found out. Someone told them."

Questioner: "Then the family planning workers came to your house. Did a
whole troop of them come?"

Woman: "A lot of them came. Many, many people."

Questioner: "What if you hid?"

Woman: "That wouldn't work. They would tear down my house." (Points at
the ceiling). "They would wreck it."

Narrator: So she was sterilized a second time, at the government's
insistence, and there have been no more children.

(Photo of woman, with child, interviewed September 2001, a short
distance from UNFPA office, in county where UNFPA operates and claims
coercion does not exist. This interview was recorded on audio tape.)

Narrator: This woman was pregnant with her second child, and the
authorities wanted her to abort...

Woman: "I was four-and-a-half months pregnant. They wanted me to report
to the hospital for an abortion but I refused to go. I went into hiding in
my mother's village. Then my brother, my older sister, and my younger
sister were all arrested. I had no choice but to go somewhere else to
hide. They arrested three people in my mother's family but didn't destroy
any homes. They arrested six people in my mother-in-law's family and
destroyed three homes."

(Photo of man and damaged home, interviewed September 29, a short
distance from UNFPA office, in county where UNFPA operates and claims
coercion does not exist. This interview was recorded on audiotape.)

Narrator: When they couldn't find the woman, they attacked her
home--and the homes of her relatives--with jackhammers. Her father-in-law
describes the damage.

Man: "Look at this. All of the doors and windows destroyed. Here's a
big hole that they knocked in the wall. It took forty bags of cement to
repair the holes."

(Photo of women in waiting room, taken a short distance from UNFPA
office. PRI investigators spoke with several women in this photo who
confirmed that forced abortion exists in this county where UNFPA
operates.)

Narrator: Here in a hospital waiting room, a pregnant woman waits for
an abortion. Too young at 19 years of age to get married--the minimum age
is 23--she has been ordered to report for an abortion. As she disappears
into the operating room, we ask her three friends here with her: "Would
she like to keep her baby?" "Oh, yes," they all replied, "But the law
forbids it."

UNFPA Operations in Jianou County, Fujian Province,
And in Kuerle County, Xinjiang Province

PRI researchers also obtained information about two other UNFPA county
programs, the first in Jianou county, Fujian Province, and the second in
Kuerle county, Xinjiang Autonomous Region.

We were told that the population control regulations of Fujian
Province, which are enforced without exception in all counties, call for:

" Mandatory use of IUDs.
" Mandatory quarterly exams.
" Fines of 50 yuan per day, and 2,000 yuan per month imposed for
non-compliance with mandatory examinations.
" Forced sterilization after six months of non-compliance with exam.
" Mandatory registration of child within one month after birth of child,
punishable with forced sterilization for non-compliance.
" Forced abortion, forced sterilization and 10,000 yuan fine for pregnancy
before age 20.

In Xinjiang Province, particularly in rural areas like Kuerle county (Korla
in the local Uighur language), local family planning officials frequently
resort to brute force. Kuerle (Korla) county is the location of UNFPA's
Xinjiang county program. Abuses include:

The UNFPA responded to PRI's investigation by organizing an in-house
delegation of UNFPA employees and associates to visit China. The
eight-page "Mission Report" issued by UNFPA describes the details of their
22-26 October visit to Beijing, Guangzhou, Sihui county, and Qianjiang
City, Hubei Province. Of the five days spent in China, half was spent in
Beijing, in meetings, banquets and barbecues with Chinese officials from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Family Planning Commission.

During half-day visits to Sihui and Qianjiang, the delegation was
accompanied by Chinese officials from the national, provincial,
prefectural, municipal, and county governments. They went on guided tours
of several family planning clinics, and spent only 30 minutes on
"household visits," which were again conducted in the presence of Chinese
officials. In the absence of unsupervised contact with ordinary Chinese,
it is unlikely that UNFPA could accurately assess the state of the
one-child policy in Sihui county or anywhere else in China.

The UNFPA's "Mission Report" presents no credible evidence, based on
interviews with ordinary Chinese, to support its claim that voluntarism
exists in its county program in Sihui, or anywhere else in China. Its
"Mission Report" simply repeats assertions made by Chinese officials that
coercion has been eliminated and targets and quotas have been lifted in
Sihui county. The Chinese officials who make these assertions are not
unbiased observers, but interested parties, who have every reason to put
the best face on the family planning programs that they supervise,
especially when these are called into question.

UNFPA Supports
Coercion

PRI's investigation in China shows that UNFPA supports China's family
planning policy. UNFPA's support consists of public praise for, and
misinformation about, China's coercive family planning policy. UNFPA also
directly supports coercive family planning with funding, and through its
complicity with the implementation of policies which are fundamentally
coercive in principle and practice.

Appendix

Photos:

UNFPA office desk

Mother with "black child"

Jackhammer campaign

Congressional testimonies:

Testimony of Steve Mosher, President of Population Research Institute

Testimony of Josephine Guy, PRI's lead investigator

Testimony of Harry Wu, Executive Director of Laogai Research Foundation

Testimony of Yemlibike Fatkulin on Coercive Chinese Birth Control
Policy on Uyghurs in East Turkestan (Xiangiang)

Congressional statements:

Statement by Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman of House Committee on
International Relations

Statement by Rep. Christopher H. Smith, Vice Chairman of House
Committee on International Relations

Statement of Rep. Joseph Pitts of House International Relations
Committee

Steven W. Mosher
President
Population Research Institute
Wednesday, October 17, 2001

China's One-Child
Policy: Coercive from the Beginning

Testimony Submitted to the International Relations Committee of the
U.S. House of Representatives for the Hearing on "Coercive Population
Control in China: New Evidence of Forced Abortion and Forced
Sterilization,"

Introduction

I have been a student of China one-child policy since the late 1970s,
when I became the first American social scientist to conduct a full-length
study of a Chinese village. From 1979 to 1980, I lived in rural Guangdong.
At the beginning of 1980, the Guangdong provincial government secretly
ordered a 1 percent cap on population growth for the year. Local officials
had complied the only way they could-by launching a family planning "high
tide" soon thereafter to terminate as many pregnancies as possible.

The rules governing this high tide were simple: No woman was to be
allowed to bear a second child within four years of her first, and third
children were strictly forbidden. Furthermore, all women who had borne
three or more children by November 1, 1979, were to be sterilized.

Over the next few weeks I became an eyewitness to every aspect of this
draconian campaign. I went with young women to family planning "study
sessions" and saw them harangued and threatened by senior Party officials.
I followed them as they were taken under escort to the commune clinic and
watched-with the permission of local officials who were eager to
demonstrate their prowess in birth control to a visiting foreigner-as they
were aborted and sterilized.

During the intervening years I have made periodic trips into China to
assess family planning policies, have commissioned others to undertake
such investigations, and have closely followed both official Chinese
pronouncements and reports appearing in the specialized literature and the
popular press.

History of One-Child Policy

The demands of China's family planners escalated as the eighties
unfolded. The one-child policy, first adumbrated by Deng Xiaoping in a
1979 speech, was in place nationwide by 1981. The "technical policy on
family planning" followed two years later. Still in force today, the
technical policy requires IUDs for women of childbearing age with one
child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on
the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization. By the
mid-eighties, according to Chinese government statistics, birth control
surgeries-abortions, sterilizations, and IUD insertions-were averaging
more than thirty million a year. Many, if not most, of these procedures
were performed on women who submitted only under duress.

The principal modification of the one-child policy occurred in the
mid-eighties when, in response to rising levels of female infanticide, the
government relaxed the policy in the countryside for couples whose first
child was a girl. In many parts of China this has devolved into a de facto
two-child policy, as rural officials found the selective enforcement of a
mixed policy-one child for couples whose first child was a boy, two
children for couples whose first child was a girl- difficult to manage.

Current Situation

Twenty-two years after my initial field research in China, where do we
stand?

Today, the Chinese family planning program continues to be carried out
against the popular will by means of a variety of coercive measures.
Despite official denials and intermittent efforts to discourage some of
the more blatant manifestations of physical, that is, bodily, coercion,
coercion continues to be, as it has been from the late 1970s, an integral
part of the program. Mandatory IUD insertions, sterilizations, and
abortions continue. The national family planning journal continues to
issue thinly disguised injunctions to get the job done by whatever means
necessary. The emphasis continues to be on "real action," "effective
measures," and "practical results."

Articles in the Chinese media openly speak of the need for coercion in
family planning, and senior officials continue to endorse the policy as
currently practiced. Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji, for instance, said
on October 13, 1999, that "China will continue to enforce its effective
family planning policy in the new century in order to create a favorable
environment for further development." (italics added.) And in its White
Paper on Population, released on December 19, 200o, the PRC avows it will
continue the one-child policy for another fifty years. The White Paper
actually sets a population target of 1.6 billion people by the year 2050.

The Chinese government, as it has for the past two decades, sought to
suggest that these targets and quotas will be achieved by "education" and
"persuasion." As an example of the effectiveness of "education" and
"persuasion," the White Paper offered the information that women were
putting off their first child until age 23.6 by 1998, while in 1970 they
gave birth at 20.8 years. But this is disingenuous. The age at first birth
has climbed in the People's Republic

of China not because of "education" and "persuasion," but because women
are forbidden to marry until 23, and aborted if they become pregnant out
of wedlock.

The Chinese government also maintains that local abuses-such as the
abortion campaign recently ordered in the Guangdong county of Huaiji--as
aberrations. But the Chinese program remains highly coercive not because
of local deviations from central policies but as a direct, inevitable, and
intentional consequence of those polices.

United Nations
Population Fund Involvement

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has supported the one-child
policy in China from 1979. Currently, under a program begun in 1998, it
operates family planning programs in 32 counties, or county-level
municipalities, throughout China. The UNFPA claims that in the counties
where it is active (1) reproductive health programs are "fully voluntary,"
(2) "women are free to voluntarily select the timing and spacing of their
pregnancies," (3) targets and quotas have been lifted, (4) in keeping with
the principles of the 1994 Cairo Program of Action, abortion is not
promoted as a method of family planning and (4) that coercion does not
exist.

I have always held the opinion that, given the character of China's
family planning program, and its human rights situation in general, that
it was highly unlikely that the UNFPA's claims about its current program
are accurate.

We now have documentation, from on the ground in China, that its claims
are completely false. I leave it to the following witness to lay out the
details of the coercion, forced abortions, and forced sterilizations which
she has documented in a region of China which the UNFPA has claimed is
free of such abuses.

It is my recommendation to the Congress that, because of the UNFPA's
continued involvement in China's coercive one-child policy, and no less
because of its sheer duplicity about this involvement, no U.S. funds
should be appropriated for its support.

Population Research Institute receives no funding from the Federal
government.

Josephine Guy
Director of Governmental Affairs, America 21
PRI's Lead Investigator
House Committee on International Relations
October 17, 2001

Honorable Chairman, members of this committee: My investigation in
China began on September 27, 2001. With three others -- two translators
and a photographer -- our investigation lasted a total of four days.

During this time, we had the opportunity to interview many women about
methods of family planning which are enforced in their county. Some choked
back tears as they told of the abuse they suffer as a result of coercive
policies of family planning, while others flocked to tell us their stories
of coercion.

The interviews we conducted were recorded in notebooks, on audio and
videotape, and additional photographic evidence was obtained. The abuses
we documented during this investigation are recent, ongoing, rampant and
unrelenting. And they exist in a county where the United Nations
Population Fund claims that women are free to determine the timing and
spacing of pregnancy.

On the first day of our investigation, we interviewed women in a family
planning clinic about a mile from the county office of the UNFPA. We
interviewed a 19-year-old there who told us she was too young to be
pregnant according to the unbending family planning policy. While she was
receiving a non-voluntary abortion in an adjacent room, her friends told
us that she indeed desired to keep her baby, but she had no choice, since
the law forbids.

At another location not far from there, a woman testified that she
became pregnant despite an earlier attempt by family planning officials to
forcibly sterilize her. That attempt failed. She became pregnant, and was
forcibly sterilized a second time by family planning doctors and
officials. Had she refused, she told us on videotape, then family planning
crews would have torn her house down.

We were told of efforts by many women to hide their pregnancies from
government officials, in an attempt to escape forced abortion, so they
could give birth to a child they desired. We were told of women having to
hide their pregnancies and their children, to escape retribution from
officials for not having an abortion. We were told of the many so-called
"black" children in the region who are born out of accord with local birth
regulations. We were also told of the punishments inflicted on those who
wish to freely determine for themselves the timing and spacing of
pregnancy.

We were told of the non-voluntary use of IUDs and mandatory
examinations so that family planning officials can ensure that women have
not removed IUDs in violation of policy, and the strict punishment which
result from non-compliance of this coercive and inhumane policy.

One woman we interviewed had heroically escaped forced abortion by
hiding in a nearby village. As a result, she testified, three people in
her mother's family, and six people in her mother-in-law's family, were
arrested and thrown into prison. They were released after four months
imprisonment, only after a crippling fine -- of 17,000 RMB, (about $2,000
US), equal to about three year's wages) -- was paid to family planning
officials. Today this woman must pay another 17,000 RMB before her child
can be legally registered and permitted to attend school. And when her
relatives were in jail, the Office of Family Planning sent a crew of
officials armed with jack hammers to their homes. They destroyed their
homes and belongings with jack hammers.

All interviews were conducted within a few miles from a UNFPA office,
in a county where UNFPA contends that coercion does not exist. In a county
where UNFPA claims that only voluntarism prevails, we were told by a
victim of abuse that family planning policies involving coercion and force
are stricter today than ever before.

Through discrete contact made with local officials, we located the
County Government Building. Within this building, we located the Office of
Family Planning. And within the Office of Family Planning, we located the
UNFPA office. Through local officials, we learned the UNFPA works in and
through this Office of Family Planning. We photographed the UNFPA office
desk, which faces -- in fact touches -- a desk of the Chinese Office of
Family Planning.

We confirmed that all of the locations of the interviews that were
conducted fell within this County and under the governance of the County
bureaucracy housed in the County Government Building.

Prior to my arrival in China, advance research had been done regarding
family planning policies and operations in other regions. Preparations had
been made for investigating these regions. But due to the information
already obtained, and mindful of potential risks and dangers to the
individuals interviewed, it was decided that I should return home.

Honorable Chairman and members of this committee: in this county where
UNFPA operates -- where UNFPA insists that only voluntarism exists -- we
were told by victims of coercion themselves that there is, in fact, no
trace of voluntarism in this county. There is only coercion, in abundant
supply, in this county where UNFPA operates -- from within the Office of
Family Planning.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you and God bless.

Harry Wu
Executive Director
Laogai Research Foundation

October 17, 2001
Committee on International Relations
United States House of Representatives

I am honored to testify here again on the Planned Birth Policy in the
People's Republic of China.

In 1998, I testified alongside other crucial witnesses on this same
issue before this very committee. Unfortunately, the Planned Birth Policy
is still carried out as the national policy of the People's Republic of
China, and consequent violations of basic human rights are perpetrated no
less frequently.

It is regrettable that in addressing human rights issues, the United
States government fails to accuse the Planned Birth Policy of the People's
Republic of China - a policy of gross human rights violations - from a
proper standpoint. Primarily focusing on persecution cases of prominent
dissidents, our government often overlooks China's systemic violations of
basic human rights, violations that effect each and every citizen: the
intellectuals and workers, urbanites and peasants, Han Chinese and
minorities, the men, women and children of China. Those overlooked include
the massive Laogai ("reform through labor") system, the Planned Birth
Policy, the horrible practice of mass and public execution, the harvesting
of executed prisoners' organs, and the all-around ruthless persecution of
religious believers.

To become a peaceful, prosperous, democratic and free nation, China
must significantly improve human rights conditions from the most basic and
universal aspects. Otherwise, more skyscrapers and high-rises, more
manufacturers, and more technology will only transfuse more blood to
extend the existence of this regime.

The population policy that began in the 1980's is a policy under the
absolute control of the Chinese Communist Party, a policy that grossly
violates human nature as well as human rights. Based exclusively on
political considerations, it is a barbaric action.

China argues in support of its population policy, saying that China has
limited living and land resources. To become prosperous, China must curb
its population growth. They claim that limited living and land resources
as a result of overpopulation lead to poor education, environmental
hazards, poor medical care, and a low quality of life for the population.
To summarize, the Chinese government wishes that people around the world,
particularly the Chinese people, could agree that overpopulation is one of
the major reasons why China remains poor and corrupt. But, such an
argument is preposterous and entirely unacceptable. One only needs to
glance a few inches on a globe to see why: Japan, which has far more
people per capita than China, is in fact a developed nation,
well-educated, stable, and tackling population control through better
education rather than brutal control.

In actuality, China's Communist political and economic system is the
main reason why it can barely develop, which in turn causes an exploding
population and stagnant economy. The only way to solve China's population
problem is not to strengthen Communism's political powers, but to
drastically change its irrational political and economic system.

To give birth is a basic human right. No government, organization, or
individual should, based on political, economic, cultural, religious and
racial reasons, deprive a human being's right to give birth. To give birth
is also an act of nature, and try as we might, we cannot always control a
human being's reproductive system. To violently punish a woman and her
unborn child for natural consequences often beyond their control is the
epitome of cruelty. And, to hold such power in the hands of a central
totalitarian regime invites far too many human rights abuses to terrify
the masses.

It is my hope that all of you who are here, all American statesmen,
scholars, religious workers and grassroots citizens, will agree that such
a personal, yet universal issue of one's right to procreate deserves a
standard that cannot be overlooked by China.

In 1998, I testified on how the Planned Birth Policy was implemented in
the Fujian Province. Today I testify on new research in Tianjin
Municipality and in regions of national minorities.

Tianjin, with its population of ten million, is one of China's four
municipalities directly under the central government, the other three
being Bejing, Shanghai, and Chongqing. With its better economic and
cultural conditions, one would expect the implementation of its Planned
Birth Policy to be relatively more "civilized" than in other regions.

The following is a description of our investigation:

1. According to Article Four of Tianjin Municipality Regulations of
Planned Birth (Attachment I) which was promulgated on April 15, 1994 by
the Seventh Plenary Session, Twelfth People's Congress Standing Committee
of Tianjin Municipality, Tianjin carries out a system that holds the CEOs
of work units accountable for population quotas during their tenure. In
other words, the responsibility of CEOs for population quotas is fixed by
their governmental superiors. CEOs at all levels are duty-bound,
authorized, and determined to make it impossible for population growth to
surpass fixed quotas during their tenure. If they fail to do so, they will
lose their promotions and risk dismissal or punishment. This is the
principle reason why Communist cadres at all levels resort to desperate,
barbaric practices of forcing artificial abortion and sterilization, and
killing infants. Such a practice relates directly to the security of their
jobs.

For instance, superior units allow Xinanliuxing Village of the Dongpuwa
Township in Wuqing County, Tianjin, which has a population of 500, a quota
of only 2.5 children annually, or, 5 children every two years. (Attachment
II) Should more than five children be born, the punishment befalls the
village party branch secretary and planned birth director. Subsequently,
they sterilize all women with two children in the village. All women with
one child are forced to undergo device-insertion surgery. The device
reliability and pregnancy are checked every three months. If a woman is
pregnant, she must undergo an abortion. The report lists two cases of
this.

This hospital, which receives funds from the United Nations Children
Foundation, performs around 300 forced abortion surgeries and 100-150
sterilization surgeries monthly.

2. According to Article Two of Tianjin Municipality Regulations of
Planned Birth, out-of-plan births and out-of-wedlock births are
prohibited; birth can only be granted to children within the plan. As
Tianjin Planned Birth Committee explains, "Prohibiting out-of-plan births
means prohibiting non-approved second or third births"; "out-of-wedlock
births means unmarried people giving birth," and this is considered to be
illegal; "population growth must correspond to plan" means that the
superior government units stipulate subordinate units' birth plans, which
must in no case be "overfilled."

Such a population control policy, with the government stipulating birth
figures, has been unprecedented in world history. The figures have legal
binding force and are executed by CEOs authorized by the government to
implement their quotas.

An investigation report shows that the Planned Birth Policy of the
People's Republic of China allows national minorities to be treated
somewhat differently. But, to learn the truth of that, one needs only to
read the statement of Uzbek minority Mahire Omerjan. Mahire, a young woman
with one son, was held down against her will despite legislation allowing
minorities two or three children while nurses forcibly pushed her healthy,
unborn child out of her womb. (Attachment III)

According to a recent report issued by the Chinese authorities, as the
result of implementing the Planned Birth Policy over the last twenty
years, the Chinese population is 330 million less than had been predicted.
Beijing boasts this as the great victory of its Planned Birth Policy, and
indeed, that is a significant figure in population control. But we, as
fellow human beings, are required to ask how many of those 330 million
were desired children, annihilated through forced abortion? If we assume
the proportion to be one third, then that means 110 million lives
destroyed and 110 million mothers the victims of violent law enforcement.
If we assume the proportion to be merely one tenth, we see 33 million
families disrupted for the sake of officials' good favor with an unstable,
totalitarian regime. This is planned and pre-meditated murder and abuse of
both women and children.

Violent consequences aside, it is important to note that if Chinese
authorities continue to implement this Planned Birth Policy, the Chinese
population will be horribly unbalanced. In a small village in the Guanxi
province, 19 out of 24 births during the year 2001 were boys. China's
population of 1.2 billion people has 41 million more men than women. The
Chinese generally prefer their only child to be male, particularly in the
countryside where boys are of more help to the family. Therefore, female
infants are often killed or left at orphanages. If this continues, the
proportion of males will quickly tower over the proportion of females,
leading to a vaster network of women trafficking as men scramble to find
wives. Upcoming generations will have no concept of siblings, cousins,
uncles and aunts. China will be an abnormal, hapless nation.

I stand before you today to condemn the nature and implementation of
China's Planned Birth Policy. I wholeheartedly agree that something must
be done to control China's population problem. However, what I have
described today is a brutal method that, in time, will only further sour
the relationship between the government and the masses and lead to
problems of a far more serious nature. I therefore urge the Chinese
authorities to seek out and consider alternative methods of population
control, to research more successful and less violent method implemented
by other nations. And I urge the American government to assist them as
best they can.

ATTACHMENT II

Tianjin
Investigation Report, Part One

To grasp the reality of the Planned Birth Policy, we visited Xiqing
(formerly Xijiao) District, Tianjin, in the Dongtaizi and Xiaojinzhuang
Villages of the Wangwenzhuang Township. Through a friend, we were able to
talk with cadres in charge of planned birth who told us how the policy is
implemented.

The first planned birth cadre with whom we spoke was ZHOU Guilan, a
52-year-old female, who had been a peasant. From 1974 through 1996, Zhou
spent over twenty years working the planned birth office until she retired
because of her age. Our friend, who knew Zhou well, told her that we were
writing a thesis on population and wanted to consult her on the
implementation of Planned Birth policies in rural areas. She spoke frankly
and gave us highly reliable information. We therefore wrote this report
under our real names.

According to Zhou, 1983 was an important year in planned birth, with
new methods replacing old ones. This was confirmed by the second woman we
spoke to, TIAN, the vice head of Xiaojinzhuang Village. We spoke with them
separately, but what they told us was the same.

In 1983, their superiors, commune-level cadres, sent a Bazhou City
physician to them who had already performed sterilization surgeries on
thousands of women of child-bearing age who already had two children. The
surgeries were said to be "voluntary," when in actuality, no targeted
woman could refuse the surgery. The targeted women in the township were
brought to the physician by village and township cadres.

The physician performed the surgeries quickly, spending no more than
ten minutes on each sterilized woman. A total of 89 targeted women
underwent sterilization.

We asked if there had been surgical accidents. She said one malpractice
accident happened to a Xiaojinzhuang woman. Asked how the situation was
handled, she said township took care of the woman's health care and
subsidiaries. She did not disclose the amount, but added that the woman
died in 1997.

Asked about key points in planned birth work, she said that the most
important factor is not to overstep "quotas" - the number of permissive
births. Superiors grant the birth quotas to grassroots leaders, who in
turn report all births. Each district has its planned birth office,
townships have their own planned birth agencies, and villages each have a
team of planned birth workers. A village Communist Party secretary and the
village head take charge of a township's Planned birth Policy, but the
workers carry out the actual deeds.

A newly-married couple is given one quota, or permission to bear one
child. Upon the birth of their first child, endless "precautions" begin to
prevent a second birth. If their first child is female, they may have a
second child with permission from authorities. This is called "rational
second birth." Unconditional sterilization follows to rule out further
births.

It goes without saying that certain methods of enactment are
indispensable to the policy. Zhou told us that in each of the four
villages within the township - Xiaohanzhuang, Xiaonianzhuang,
Xiaojinzhuang and Xilanzhai - homes that housed families with more than
one child had been razed to the ground by bulldozers. Village Planned
Birth officials brought all child-bearing-age women to the homes to bear
witness to the destruction. This method, known as "killing the chicken to
scare the monkey" is popular in maintaining Communist power and is akin to
practices of public executions and public sentencing rallies. The second
cadre we spoke with confirmed the method of destroying homes.

In Dongtaizi Village, a second birth took place and the family received
a monetary penalty of 147,000 RMB, a sum they were unable to pay. Village
cadres pitied them and lessened the penalty to 30,000 RMB under the
condition that should another family follow their example, the full amount
would befall the entire village. When a family produces an "over-birth,"
the entire village is often penalized with heavy fines.

Asked if illegally born children receive "residence quotas", documents
that prove their legitimacy and ultimately important in one's search for
education and employment, Tian replied, "Of course not."

When a woman receives a second-birth permit, she must pledge to be
sterilized immediately following the second birth. If she refuses to do
so, police and courts have the right to become involved, resulting in
possible monetary fines and property confiscation among other punishments.

A fee of 5,550 RMB obtains a second-birth permit. With 550 RMB paid for
sterilization, 5,000 RMB is refunded once sterilization is complete. If
the mother refuses sterilization, 5,000 RMB is held as a penalty and
forced sterilization ensues.

Urine tests and ultrasounds must be completed every three months on
each fertile woman. If a woman tests positive for pregnancy, she
immediately undergoes an abortion. Once, in Xiaosunzhuang, a woman managed
to evade the routine exams. When officials caught up to her, she was over
8 months pregnant. Officials aborted her fetus.

The development of planned birth work is difficult to study in rural
areas. Both Zhou and Tian, however, agreed that since the 1990's it has
been easier for them to handle their work. It seems that people have
become "enlightened" and have lost some hostility to population-control
workers. They said that women are beginning to see the benefits of having
less children, and some even returned their second-birth quotas. Many
others with whom we spoke agreed: it seems that Chinese women are indeed
willing to have less children.

Tianjin
Investigation, Part II

On July 17, 1998, I visited Xinanliuxing Villiage in Wuqing County of
Tianjin Municipality. JIN Yao's aunt, age 56, was the Communist Party
secretary. I told her that I was assigned by my unit to carry on a social
investigation on the topic of planned birth. She was in charge of planned
birth work, and had as a subordinate an illiterate woman to carry out the
policies.

Our talk progressed smoothly. What she said was fully trustworthy.

The small mountain village has a population of 500. At present, there
is no population growth in the village. The village had a quota of 2.5
children annually, or 5 children in two years. In that year, the village
elementary school did not have enough students to form a class.

As she recalled, the superior township government started the planned
birth work in 1975. The goal at that time was: one couple, two children.
They discouraged families having three children.

In 1983, all women who had just given birth to their second child were
sterilized. Those who resisted were taken to the township and locked up
for several days. Village women, fearing government actions, agreed to the
surgery, and only then could they return home.

In the Planned Birth Policy, a village may be stipulated a monetary
penalty of 200,000 RMB for each case of over-birth. The first 20,000 RMB
is due as soon as the child is born, followed by yearly fines of 10,000
RMB for the next 18 years.

Village cadres suffer punishment if they overlook a case of over-birth.
Planned birth work carries on under tight supervision by superior units.

A woman undergoes device-insertion surgery as soon as she gives birth
to her first child. Every three months, workers from the township test her
urine. Once, a woman whose urine tests were not performed, was sent to
undergo an abortion when she was eight months pregnant. Usually, a shot is
given to the infant in the womb to induce a still-born birth. In this
case, the shot mistakenly entered the amniotic fluid and the child emerged
alive and healthy. The child's grandmother bravely forced her way into the
office, yelling, "This child is legal. You gave a faulty shot. Don't you
dare touch him!" As a result, the child survived and the family escaped
monetary penalties.

Another woman in her eighth month of pregnancy was sent to the hospital
for an abortion. When physicians left the hospital in the evening, they
locked the iron gate in the hallway. The woman crept through an opening
above the gate and escaped. She had barely reached the bus station when
she gave birth to her child. The child escaped death, but the woman's
grain ration was reduced and she paid heavy fines.

No house was dismantled in this village. Women of child-bearing age
whose first born is a girl and qualify for a second child may do so when
they turn 35. When a husband or wife is impaired, a second birth is
approved 4 years after the first birth. Women approved to have a second
birth must pay 3,000 RMB and pledge to undergo sterilization immediately
following. Once sterilization is complete, the 3,000 RMB is refunded to
them.

Investigation written by Laogai Research Foundation associates within
China in October 1999.

ATTACHMENT III

Mahire Omerjan's
StatementMy name is Mahire Omerjan, female. I was born on May 5th,
1960, in Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uigur Autonomous Region, China. In July
1978 I graduated from Experimental High School, Senior Section, Urumqi
City, and started working as a substitute teacher at #47 Elementary
School, Urumqi City. In November 1980, I was hired by Tien Shan Woolen
Mill in Xinjiang. My nationality is Uzbek, a very small nationality of
9,000 people living mainly in Urumqi, Ghutja, Kashgar, Guqung and other
places. On October 13th, 1985, I married Adil Atawutta, a Uigur man. Our
family has always been a happy one. In April 1996, he came to the United
States. He is a graduate student of computer science at Northwestern
Polytechnic University. Before that he had taught experimental physics at
Xinjiang Normal University.

In November, 1988, I gave birth to our first child. He is twelve now.
In January, 1990, I was pregnant with our second child, and misfortunes
befell me. Those at our company who were in charge of our planned birth
knew I was pregnant. They said they would think about how to handle "my
problem." A few months later, they said, "You can't have this child. It's
not in keeping with the spirit of related documents." I asked them what
"documents' spirit" it was not in keeping with, and they replied, "You're
child is not yet three. You must wait until he is three, and then you can
have a second child." They also said I would have to go through an
abortion. Some time passed, and the people at our company in charge of
planned birth talked to me again. They said they would not allow me to
have a second child and urged me to have an abortion. Then I explained to
them, "I'm a minority. According to your National Minorities Policy, I am
allowed to have two children. Besides, I'm five months pregnant. We have
our religious faith. By our religion, abortion is not permitted. It's a
crime." But they said, "We don't care about your religion. Such is the
Party's planned birth policy. We will not permit you to have this child."
I said, " I'm a mother. To give birth to children is the right Allah gives
me. It's the continuation of life. I must give birth to this child."

Many times I spoke with my bosses, requesting permission to have the
child. My husband also wrote letters to my unit requesting that they give
me a chance. At the same time, he went to the Autonomous Region's Urumqi
City Planned Birth Office, requesting that they give me a "birth quota."
But, all our endeavors turned out to be futile. During the whole process
more than one month passed. Finally, my unit decided to take me by force
to the hospital for an abortion. I was then six and a half months
pregnant. My husband had appealed to all possible units and people,
including bosses in our respective units, requesting that they permit an
innocent life to be born into this world. But, all of them rejected his
pleas. They said, "If you don't do what we want, we'll suspend your wages,
cancel your bonuses, levy a 2,500 RMB penalty on you, suspend all benefits
you are enjoying now. And your child will never have a residence permit.
He'll be a nobody." This actually meant I would lose my job. They tried to
dissuade me in such ignominious ways, economically and administratively.
We thought about this and decided, whatever they resort to, we must keep
our child.

Nevertheless, reality was too cruel. In Xinjiang, the Communist Party
exercises not only dictatorial rule, but rampant racial discrimination.
The Communists periodically carry out "red terror." I am a woman of the
Uzbek national minority with a population of only thousands. But, they
wanted me to have an abortion. Xinjiang, or Eastern Turkestan, is the land
where we have lived for generations upon generations. On this land, we do
not enjoy even minimal rights. They even decide how and when we can give
birth to children. They do whatever they want. If I had lost my job at
that time, I would have no chance to find another. My husband's monthly
salary was 380 RMB ($45). We lived a very simple life. We did not have
thousands of dollars to pay to them. We had to survive. We had to breed
our first child.

I must mention that according to China's National Minorities Policy in
Xinjiang and Xinjiang Uigur Autonomous Region's planned birth documents,
families of Uigur, Kazak, and other national minorities living in urban
areas are allowed to have two children, while families of such national
minorities like Uzbek and Tatar, with a population of under 10,000 living
in urban areas, are allowed to have three children. Nevertheless,
different units, while actually implementing the "policy" or "spirit of
documents" may act in their own ways or simply refuse to implement the
national minority rights.

At that time, my work unit, trying its best to be evaluated as one of
the advanced enterprises in the nation, "excellent in ten aspects" (one of
the aspects being planned birth), completely disregarded the "policy" and
"documents." To be exact, certain Communist Party officials, striving for
personal gains and an "untarnished reputation" as leaders of "advanced
units," disregard people's lives and reduce themselves to cannibalism.
They do everything in their power to attain their goal, economically and
administratively. How the Communist Party's National Minorities Policy
sounds in words is one thing; how it is implemented is quite another. As a
matter of fact, there really is no law in China.

On July 15th, 1990, at 2:00 PM, my work unit sent a Nissan van to my
home. BAI Li of my unit's planned birth office, YING Fengying, the trade
union chairperson, and XU Jun, a trade union staff member, came to my
home. They escorted me to #1 Hospital attached to the Xinjiang Medical
School for "impulsive artificial abortion surgery." I was in tears. The
next morning, at 10:00 AM, a health checkup was done. One of the
physicians who checked me said, "Your child is very healthy and big."
After the check-up, I was administered a kind of drug. About an hour
later, I was sent to the obstetrician surgical room. My husband was kept
outside. I was put on an operating table. Two nurses were standing on
either side of me. An obstetrician was about to give me a shot. I saw the
needle was thick, about 10 centimeters long, and asked the obstetrician on
which part of my body she would administer the shot. She told me it would
go through my abdomen. Terrified, I thought the shot was going directly
into my child's body, because my child was struggling fiercely in my
abdomen. At that moment, I panicked and thought I must keep my child at
any cost. I told the obstetrician, "Doctor, don't give me the shot. I want
to go home. I want my child!" I started calling for my husband. But the
two nurses started pressing my arms with all their might. One of the
nurses said ferociously, "Who told you to get pregnant! Who told you not
to act according to the planned birth policy!" I was struggling and
crying. But still, the needle went into the right side of my abdomen.
About two hours later my abdomen began aching and I was perspiring all
over. My stomach ached so badly, as though it would break. Some time
later, in agony, I found my child was no longer struggling. That was the
most painful moment in my life. I hated the "medical personnel" bitterly.
They tarnished the most noble and humanitarian profession in the world. It
was they who murdered an innocent life in his mother's abdomen. Could
there be anything more tragic in the world? But there was nothing I could
do about it. I was crying. I hated myself. I felt sorry for my elder
child, because his brother was murdered by those monsters. Oh, Allah, you
saw everything with your own eyes! Crying, I implored the obstetrician to
allow my husband to stand by my side, but she refused. Some time passed. I
lost consciousness. When I came to, my abdomen was aching badly. The two
nurses were forcefully pressing my abdomen, slowly pushing my child
downward. They wanted me to breathe heavily. I was weak all over. I almost
lost consciousness. More time passed. I saw them slowly pushing my child
outward. The two nurses were fighting for the placenta, saying it could be
made into a kind of medicine. Crying, I asked them to show me the child.
One of the nurses, taking my child by his legs, showed him to me for a
short moment. Struggling, I wanted to hug my child, but was weak all over.
I saw it was a boy, very big. . . Then, I fainted. When I awoke, I was in
a ward of twelve patients and was having an intravenous glucose drip. My
husband was standing by their side. I hugged him and cried bitterly. Only
later did I know that the two nurses only took me to the obstetrician
surgical room's door in a wheelchair. It was my husband who carried me to
the ward.

The whole thing was a true nightmare. It is too terrible, too tragic.
But it really happened! We lost our child. Helplessly, we watched them
murder our child, who was six and a half months and was going to be born
into this world in just two months. Two hours later, my husband went to
the obstetrician surgical room to see our child. But, they had already
sent the child to be frozen in a big refrigerator. According to Islamic
ritual, my husband took our child to the mosque, where he groomed our
child's ace. He saw the child had bluish birthmarks above his right ear
and on one side of his head. Finally, he wrapped the child in gauze and,
after religious rituals, buried him in a Muslim cemetery on Yan'an Road,
Urumqi. For seven years, we have visited him several times each year. We
can only hope that the innocent life can live happily in paradise.

Mahire Omerjan

Interview conducted in August 2000 by the Laogai Research Foundation.

Yemlibike Fatkulin
House Committee on International Relations
October 17, 2001

Coercive Chinese Birth Control Policy on Uyghurs in East Turkestan

Dear Chairman, Members of Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me this precious
opportunity to testify before you. My name is Yemlibike Fatkulin. I have
asylum in the United States. I came to the US two years ago. Now I would
like to testify on coercive Chinese birth control policies imposed on the
Uyghur people since 1984.

To restrain and control the natural growth of the Uyghur population,
the Chinese government has carried out a coercive birth control and forced
sterilization policies on the Uyghurs in East Turkistan. Since then, under
the pretext of "ensuring a steady growth in minority population",
"improving the quality of minorities" and "eliminating economic
inequalities", the Chinese government launched a series of extensive birth
control and forced sterilization campaigns all over East Turkistan,
targeting the Uyghur women.

In the summer of 1998, my cousin Eneytulla Habibil's wife Mangnehan was
about to have twins at Turpan Yar village 5-star hospital. However, the
twins were immediately aborted after hospital officials learned that they
already had a child. At that time my cousin was in prison, serving his
2-year sentence for religious activities.

Officially, the one child policy on applies to the nationalities over
10 million population in China. East Turkistan (which is also called
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region by China), with a Uyghur population
around eight million, is regarded as a "minority nationality" and is in
theory not subject to the provisions of family planning legislation in
China. However, in practice, the birth control and sterilization policies
have been actively promoted and encouraged by the Chinese government in
the Uyghur towns and villages of Eastern Turkistan, especially in rural
areas.

Most of my relatives live in Turpan, an oasis town near Urumchi. My
cousin Tursunay, who is Eneytulla's sister, was sentenced to prison for
two years in 1995. All she did was wearing religious veils and devoted her
to study religion. She was forcibly sterilized in a prison at Turpan. Now
she is out of prison. However, she could never have a child in her
lifetime.

The Chinese government has set up a large number of family planning
work force and birth control clinics in all the hospitals of East
Turkistan. Every year, in order to speed up the implementation of birth
control and sterilization policies toward the indigenous Uyghurs, mobile
family planning teams are sent out to countryside areas for conducting
mass abortion and sterilization. Those Uyghur women who refuse to conduct
abortion are forcibly operated upon.

Chinese birth control policies and regulations imposed on the Uyghurs
affect both Uyghur women and children. My relative Kerimhan's three babies
were all aborted by Chinese doctors in Turpan Yar village 5-star hospital.
As a result of forced abortion, she developed severe bleeding problem
until this very day.

Besides the complex rules controlling how many children Uyghurs can
have legitimately, there is also a series of fines and punishments for
Uyghur couples who break the rules and have an unauthorized child.

My stepsister Arzigul Ablet was fined heavily after she had her first
baby born before the designated time of birth by the Chinese government.
Chinese family planning officials told Arzigul that she had to have her
baby in early 1997. Since Arzigul born the child in December 1996, she was
fined for 3,000 yuan, which was her six-month salary.

Under these rules the Uyghur children who are born without state
authorization can be denied residency, food, healthcare, and even
schooling. Even though, the Uyghurs who live in the cities are allowed to
have two children and the ones live in rural areas are allowed to have
three but most of the times they are denied to have more than one child
with an excuse of having no extra quotas. The Chinese government, through
social benefits and other further restrictions, usually discourages those
who want to have more than one child.

Every year, the Chinese family planning officials claim that the birth
control and sterilization plans among the Uyghurs in East Turkistan have
been successfully implemented, and it has fulfilled the state
requirements. According to some Uyghur family planning workers, in order
to fulfill the quota of abortions, sometimes Chinese doctors are forced to
kill the newborn Uyghur babies. As a result, this birth control system has
lead to the deaths of many Uyghur mothers and children every year.

My neighbor Patam who had three children in her first marriage got
married in 1993 with a Uyghur man who had two children. Together they
wanted to have a child after they got married. However, she was forcibly
operated upon and her child was aborted in Urumchi #2 People's Hospital.
She became paralyzed ever since her baby was aborted. She couldn't walk or
stand up after this tragic event.

The current Uyghur population is less than one percent of China's total
population. To restrict and control the natural growth of a population of
this size in any country is to totally annihilate and genocide them.
Therefore, the Chinese birth control policy of forced abortion and
sterilization of Uyghurs is not a policy of ensuring the overall quality
of Uyghur population. On the contrary, it is to gradually exterminate them
by imposing all the political, economic and social means and restrictions.

Over twenty years ago it first became apparent that the government of
the People's Republic of China was compelling women to abort their
"unauthorized" unborn children. It also appeared that the government was
forcing women --- and sometimes men --- to undergo sterilization when they
had had the maximum number of children the government thought they should
have. The usual method was intense persuasion, using all the economic,
social, and psychological tools a totalitarian state has at its disposal.
When these methods failed, the woman could be taken by physical force to a
government birth control clinic for the abortion or sterilization.

Throughout the sordid history of this coercive program, the government
of China has insisted that the program is fully voluntary. In recent years
they have conceded that there may have been isolated abuses by overzealous
local officials, but that these were strictly unauthorized.

In January of 1998 the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA - which
had long had a close working relationship with PRC family planning
officials - signed a new four-year agreement with Beijing. Under this
agreement, UNFPA would operate in 32 counties throughout China. In each of
these counties, the central and local authorities had agreed that there
would be no coercion and no birth quotas, and that abortion would not be
promoted as a method of family planning.

Some of us were skeptical about whether UNFPA was really the right
organization to ensure against coercion in China. UNFPA officials had
consistently defended the Chinese family planning program against
accusations of forced abortion and forced sterilization, even long after
other observers had concluded that these abuses did occur. Judging from
this unhappy experience, we worried about whether UNFPA officials would
recognize coercion when they saw it. But hope triumphed over experience,
and the then Administration supported the new agreement.

Today's testimony suggests that, after three years, the new arrangement
is not working. Our lead witness today, Ms. Josephine Guy, just returned
from one of UNFPA's 32 model counties. She will testify and present
videotaped evidence of forced abortion, of the destruction of houses
belonging to families who have had unauthorized children, and of similar
abuses that have been associated with the PRC population control program.
Other witnesses will testify that this new evidence is consistent with the
history of the program and with the current situation in the rest of
China.

This evidence suggests that the same harsh reality still prevails in
this so-called model county that has long prevailed throughout China. The
only difference appears to be that coercion is now cloaked behind the
rhetoric of voluntarism, shielded from criticism by yet another
international seal of approval.

I regret that the legislative schedule will prevent me from hearing
this testimony first-hand, but I look forward to reviewing it, along with
a UNFPA response which I understand will be placed in the record.
Congressman Christopher Smith, the Vice Chairman of the Committee, will
chair the remainder of the hearing, and I will carefully consider with him
and with other Members of the Committee the appropriate legislative
response to the evidence we receive today.

Coercive Population Control in China:
New Evidence of Forced Abortion and Forced Sterilization

Civilizations can be judged by how they treat women, children, old
people and strangers. Those who are the most vulnerable bring out the
kindness in every society, and also the cruelty. One of the most horrific
abuses ever practiced on women and children is forced abortion.

I do even think we can imagine the pain and suffering inflicted upon
women who are told by their government that the child they are carrying
and protecting in their body must be brutally killed with chemical
weapons-poison shots-or dismembered with a surgical knife. I do not even
know if we can comprehend what goes through a young woman's mind as she
sits in the waiting room of the government family planning clinic knowing
that her entire future and employment situation-and that of her family is
dependant on the government ordered death of her unborn child. The terror
of forced abortion is a human rights abuse of the greatest magnitude-and
it is carried out against women and children with appalling and sickening
efficiency in China.

Since 1979 to today, children in the PRC are presumed illegal and
totally expendable unless an explicit "birth authorization" is given by
the government. If that permission is not granted, the mother is cruelly
punished with a forced abortion and the child is murdered.

The one-child-policy of China, like the forced abortion policy of the
Nazis, constitutes wholesale crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg War
Crimes Tribunal got it absolutely right a half century ago, and forced
abortion in China is no less of a crime against humanity today.

On June 10, 1998, when I was the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights, I chaired a shocking hearing on
Forced Abortion and Sterilization in China: The View From the Inside. In
that hearing, we heard testimony from Mrs. Gao Xiaoduan who was the senior
official at what the government of China euphemistically calls a "family
planning clinic." Mrs. Gao could no longer live with herself while
continuing to do this work and she came to the United States to tell us
what was going on behind the scenes in China. She knew what China's true
policy was because she had helped to carry out that terrible policy.

We heard information about the fines that the government imposes on
couples who have "unauthorized" children, and how the family planning
Gestapo destroys the homes and takes the property of those who cannot pay
those fines. We heard that women are psychologically and physically
pressured to abort unauthorized children, to the point of being dragged to
the abortion mill.

Mrs. Gao also told us that the Chinese population control program
employs a network of paid informants to report on unauthorized pregnancies
of neighbors, family and friends. She also reported that forced
sterilization is even used as a punishment for men and women who disobey
the rules.

Chinese population control cadres conduct nighttime raids on couples
suspected of having unauthorized children, and they keep detailed records
on the sexual activity of every woman in their jurisdiction-so much for
privacy. And to make the coercive regime complete, the "family planning
centers" have prison cells-with bars-to detain those who resist forced
abortion or sterilization.

I think it is appropriate and necessary that today this committee, the
Congress and the President revisit the issue of forced abortion in China
to determine what has changed, if anything. We also must reevaluate our
support of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in the context of
whether or not they support this most terrible human rights abuse.

It is worth noting that throughout the 1980s and 1990s, when most
observers had concluded that coercion was an integral part of the PRC
program, UNFPA continued to work with the program and UNFPA officials
including then-Executive Director Nafis Sadik continued to defend it.

In 1983 the PRC government received the first United Nations Population
Award "for the most outstanding contribution to the awareness of
population questions."

In 1989 Executive Director Nafis Sadik said in an interview on CBS that
"the implementation of the policy [in China] and the acceptance of the
policy is purely voluntary. There is no such thing as, you know, a license
to have a birth and so on."

What a blatant lie-I would say to my colleagues.

In 1991, the official PRC news agency Xinhua summarized an interview
with Sadik as follows: "China has every reason to feel proud of and
pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning
policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now
the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other
countries."

In January 1998, the UNFPA signed a new 4-year, $20 million agreement
with the PRC. In announcing this program, the UNFPA emphasized that it
would work in only 32 counties throughout China, and that the PRC
government had agreed that in these 32 counties there would be no coercion
and no birth quotas, and that, in keeping with the principles of the
Program of Action adopted at the United Nations Conference on Population
in Cairo in 1994, abortion is not promoted as a method of family planning.

UNFPA Praises
China's Family Planning Policy

In March of this year the People's Daily reported that Thoraya Ahmed
Obaid, newly-appointed executive director of the United Nations Population
Fund, "praised that over the past 20 years, China has seen notable
achievements made in population control by implementing the family
planning policy. It has thereupon played an active role in curbing the
population growth across the world."

Imagine, the wholesale killing of millions of babies and the massive
victimization of millions of women is deemed a "notable achievement" by
the top UN population control bureaucrats. That seems to me to be
breathtakingly cruel. Anyone who cares about human rights should be
shocked.

The March People's Daily also reported that, "During an interview in
January when taking up her post of the UNFPA executive director, Ms. Obaid
told the journalist that China, having adopted practical measure in
accordance with her current situation, has scored remarkable achievements
in population control. In recent years, the UNFPA and China have carried
out a series of favorable and positive cooperation with more than 100
cooperative items of assistance established in the country."

For decades the UNFPA has vigorously endorsed, extolled and shamefully
encouraged the most anti-woman Taliban-like policy in the world-forced
abortion. The UNFPA has been a party to egregious human rights abuses
against the Chinese people-especially women and children. Their monetary
support and systematic whitewashing of the crimes of forced abortion and
forced sterilization in China is an indictment against them.

Today, we will hear testimony that demonstrates that China still abuses
its people in a massive way with forced abortion, and the testimony will
show that the UNFPA backs these abuses.

Since Mrs. Gao came to tell us about these abuses, the United States
has given the UNFPA $46.5 million. Women who have to leave everything and
go into hiding to save the lives of their children-the lucky ones-are
nothing short of heroes. We don't even know their names, but they deserve
our respect for having given up everything to protect their children.
Those who try to hunt them like animals to destroy their children and
imprison their families and jackhammer their houses are the oppressors. In
the name of compassion and humanity they deserve our opposition, and those
who are linked to these abuses against women and children should be
defunded.